Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
rayiner 457 days ago | link | parent

You can always require plaintiffs to post bond in advance. This is what is done with shareholder derivatives suits in most states. Bond requirements are undesirable in cases where meritorious plaintiffs may have no money at all, but that should not be a concern for patent cases (the idea of an "individual genius inventor" is more or less romantic mythology these days).


krichman 457 days ago | link

And surely if the individual genius had a meritorious patent, someone would be willing to fund the lawsuit.

-----

michaelt 457 days ago | link

Congratulations, you've invented patent trolls.

-----

jhdevos 457 days ago | link

With the assumption that patents are worth having, that would no longer be a bad thing. The biggest problem with these trolls is that there is hardly any risk or cost in suing, and they can disengage at any point if that starts to change. This places the defendants are at a significant disadvantage.

With that inequality out of the way, patents could be what they are promised to be: a way to ensure you can monetize to recover a significant investment that you wouldn't have made without the promise of that patent.

(I don't subscribe to the idea that patents are a good thing though; especially the kind of patents that seem to make up 99% of the patent pool).

-----

fab13n 457 days ago | link

With a twist: in this variant, patent trolls risk their money if they lose, hence only enforce patents they truly believe in.

-----

krichman 456 days ago | link

Nobody would fund a "method and apparatus for linking users of free app to the paid app" lawsuit if they had anything significant to lose over it.

-----

btilly 457 days ago | link

I like this solution.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: